#domesticatedanimals

obviously everyone has their own tastes when it comes to what makes a production good/bad or even beautiful/ugly. hell, i think some of the productions she includes as "ugly" examples are ones that i thought were quite beautiful in their own ways (or, if not beautiful necessarily, then dramaturgically creative/interesting to look at). examples: the mcburney magic flute (shown here at the met in 2023 and. a second time? as a separate example? at english national opera in 2024), the guth la boheme (paris 2025, the space one) and the sher rigoletto (met 2022). these are productions i've all seen (or older videos of them) and thought they were all very good to look at in their own ways. i wouldn't call any of them "ugly", even if think each one of them is lacking to some degree in terms of living up to their respective operas' full potential.

so, what is it that makes these productions and her other examples "ugly" according to this youtuber? well she says they're "bare ass, poorly lit, budget crisis, minimalist, 'reimagined', esoteric atrocities". which is, uh, loaded. and i wouldn't even say accurate. like, you'd call these minimalist and bare? or indicative of a budget crisis?

'cause to me, these look like very high value, skillfully crafted productions that just don't happen to be traditional. for another example, she compares this 2022 amsterdam production of la traviata with one from the met (which i affectionately refer to as "the barbie production" cause i think everyone looks like little dolls in a dollhouse lol):

now, to be fair, i have not watched this amsterdam production myself, but since she's using brief, selected clips/images to make her point, i'm comfortable comparing selected stills myself. and i will grant her this, the amsterdam production doesn't immediately look as visually interesting, since the costumes are modern (and therefore more familiar and less colorful to our eyes as modern audiences), and some of the staging looks, shall we say, tastelessly on the nose.* plus, there's less of a built set. she compares this directly to the met's 2019 production, which she extolls as practically the pinnacle of the art form. but while it's certainly pretty to look at, i do think it's kind of busy, and the costumes and blocking aren't adding much beyond visual style -- that is to say, they are serving the opera just fine, but not adding much beyond aesthetic, no deeper interpretation of the text. (also, maybe it's just me, but the giant projected camellia looks tacky af lmao). "i feel like i'm looking at art", the youtuber says, as though only the latter counts as art because it's pretty and immediately understandable, while the former doesn't.

ultimately it seems like this youtuber's determination of "good/beautiful" opera rests mostly on the naturalistic, the detailed, the opulent, the traditional, the period, the aesthetically pleasing, and the easy to digest. and sure, i like when well done operas are all of those things too sometimes! but personally i think opera can be more than that. like, the met's 2011 grandage production of don giovanni is all of those things, but it's also quite darkly lit in many scenes and the color of dirt for much of the duration. okay to look at, but not particularly interesting, imo.

by contrast, this 2017 sivadier production from aix is, in my opinion, drop-dead gorgeous (both in terms of the theatrical elements and the cinematography of the video) AND a solid, interesting production that uses all the different elements of theater (blocking, sets, costumes, lighting, acting, etc) to support and enhance the text. at the same time, it is very far from a "traditional" production, fairly minimalist, and has a decidedly unusual reinterpretation of the finale. it's not a production that holds your hand through the story, but rather it makes you really think about the choices that it makes and why they were made. i wonder what our youtuber friend would think about this one.

(with loving apologies to anyone reading this who's sick of hearing me rave over this production by now, lol)

*now i'll grant that it's a trend in a lot of reimagined and modernized stagings of operas to be weirdly violent and/or sexual, and in a very overt way that i frequently question the necessity of. i don't think that's always the same thing as being "ugly," though, nor does it make a production necessarily "bad" or ruinous to the artform. to illustrate my point, i personally think this 2023 cassiers production of don g from lille is both ugly (not good to look at, on account of the lighting, the blood, the gore, the onstage sex, etc) and bad on a dramaturgical level (these provocative elements don't serve to really support or enhance the opera's text and the director's message). and while everyone and their mother likes some tasteful blood, violence, and seduction in a don g prod, but there's definitely a limit to what's really appropriate for the storytelling.

beyond her complaints that production design and execution are trending "ugly" these days, this youtuber claims that these productions are marketing themselves in such a way as to deceive the audience about the content they are paying to see when they buy a ticket to attend the performance. and, sure, yeah, i’ll grant her that a flyer like this does not communicate much about what the production is going to look like:

but is it really some great sin against shakespeare or gounod that the production itself looks like this?

i mean, i don’t think so, since if i want to watch a different production, i can do that. there are other opera houses performing this work with different creative teams, and there are videos available for some of them on demand, like this one from the met. you can even watch it in a cinema if you wanted.

so, sure, maybe a flyer with a picture of a ladder doesn’t immediately communicate the story or themes of romeo and juliet to a viewer. but that flyer was noteworthy. It’s a design that caught the youtuber’s attention and made her comment on it, after all. it’s memorable, and it compels a viewer to look up more about what is being advertised. you can’t just see the flyer posted somewhere and then immediately walk into the theater to see the show that’s being advertised with absolutely zero additional interaction. a curious viewer would pretty necessarily have to look up the opera company and the production to find out more: the performance dates, the ticket prices, and -- shocker! -- the creative team and teaser images. 

i really do not think our youtuber friend here has an argument that holds much water. she complains that opera companies are deceiving their audiences by not being upfront about what the production is going to look like and failing to meet audience expectations (implicitly, that they are going to be “modern,” “nontraditional,” “minimalist,” or, most damningly, “ugly”). but i think she’s telling on herself here. she is expecting an opera company to spoonfeed her every bit of information about the production proactively before she decides whether it’s worth her attention (and worth being Art), rather than taking responsibility for her own curiosity and artistic preferences by seeking out more information about productions before shelling out the money to go see them herself. i’m sorry, but a single still promo image is never going to accurately and adequately convey the quality of an entire 2+ hour opera, and it’s unreasonable to expect an opera company to provide audience members with production information any more than they already make available just to try and tempt audiences to show up. you can look up production photos online! you can google the opera houses and directors! it’s not a secret! they aren’t hiding it from you just because you aren’t taking the initiative to seek it out yourself before watching the opera. it’s disingenuous to say that opera companies are deceiving their audiences with their marketing just because productions don’t always meet your expectations -- expectations which you had the power to temper ahead of time but chose not to.

you, too, can simply choose to go to see a different opera, dear commenter. you have the free and inalienable right to do so, in fact.

let’s look at the met’s 2024 production of carmen, dir. cracknell. this production had mixed reviews (personally, i hated it LOL) and it honestly falls into a lot of the pitfalls that she herself complains about with other opera productions in this very same video (modernized, drabber, darker, “reimagined” staging that’s much more edge than substance, an uncommunicative promo image), yet our youtuber still thinks it looks interesting/promising. and points out that it was the second best selling production by the met that year, selling 81% of its seats. doesn’t seem to me like it’s the “ugly” factor preventing carmen from getting butts in seats.

also, it definitely strikes me as an oversight to claim that “ugly” productions are the main reason why opera companies are failing to attract audiences and earn their revenue without acknowledging any of the very real examples to the contrary out there right now. in particular, i think of philadelphia opera, which is no stranger to operas and productions outside of the standard canon and traditional aesthetic, and which has seen practically unprecedented success recently in terms of ticket sales and audience engagement. is it because of the productions they’ve put on? maybe partially! but it also might have something to do with the fact that their tickets are pay-what-you-will, for every seat in the house, starting at an extremely accessible $11 each. another factor to consider. it's all well and good to expect art to stand on its own merit, but the reality of opera as an artform is inextricable from its reality as an industry, and thus economic factors play into the success or lack thereof for any company. this has been true since opera existed -- as has, incidentally, debates over the relative aesthetic and moral values of different types of opera.

i want to circle back to that comment the youtuber made after comparing the amsterdam traviata to that of the met. "i feel like i'm looking at art" (when looking at the met's version, not the amsterdam version). now, i am not going to accuse this woman of any kind of malicious ideology here; i think she simply has a strong and well-defined taste in visual aesthetic and storytelling concept when it comes to opera productions, which is fine. however, being so selective with what gets to be considered "art" and what is "ugly" -- and then assigning a value judgement about whether those works are edifying or ruining the artform/industry -- well, it comes a bit too close to comfort for me to talking points about "degenerate art". (to prevent myself from going on a long tangent about the history of degenerate art as a concept and how it's been used, particularly in the visual arts world, i'll simply direct you to jacob geller's excellent video essay on the subject instead.)